>> never a time and we'll have plenty of time to talk about this on "the young turks." watch viewpoint next. >> good evening, i'm eliot spitzer, and this is viewpoint. without pomp or circumstance president obama stepped into the oval office and said, i do. his self-described evolution on same-sex marriage is now complete. >> over the course of several years, as i talked to friends and family and neighbors when i think about members of my own staff who are incredibly committed monday monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when i think

about those soldiers, airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained, even now that don't ask/don't tell is gone because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point i've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that i think same-sex couples should be able to get married. >> eliot: a truly historic moment. first lady michelle obama agreed with them and it was consistent with their faith. >> we're both practicing christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others, but you know, when we think about our faith the

thing, you know, at root that we think about is not only christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the golden rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. >> eliot: while mr. obama had treated the issue gingerly, the officials now admit vice president biden forced his hand with think unequivocal comment on sunday's met "meet the press." >> i'm absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, and women marrying women and heterosexual men marrying women are all entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, and all the civil liberties and quite frankly i don't see much of a distinction beyond that. mitt >> eliot: mitt romney certainly does. >> my view is that marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman. that's my own preference. i know other people have differing views. this is a very tender and sensitive topic.

>> eliot: according to the latest gallup poll half of adult americans favor the president's position while 48% side with romney. the numbers are in the margin of error. with me richard kim, executive editor with the nation, and william. richard, let me start with you. how big is this? is this one person who hans to say i changed my mind a little bit, or is this one of those moments that will forever go down in a marker in the history books. >> this is the president of the united states. this is a big, big deal. i'm heartened when he had the guts to come forward when it's not necessarily his political benefit to make this stand. there are hundreds of gay rights activist who is have worked really hard to have this moment, to have the first president of the united states to take this position. now in terms of the policy changing what actually happens on the ground, this doesn't do

anything really. it's nice of the president lay down his marker, but there is a long road ahead to get rid of the difference of marriage act and turning over thighs these 30 state bans on controversial marriage. >> is this as rhetoricalcally as richard says, not changing things on day-to-day life, and there are those who say this is a necessary but step and now follow up with tangible act. is now he can create and frame a new moral framework. >> the president took a big risk today. this has never been done before. for someone who has been married since december to my husband this means a lot personally. i believe this is going to snowball. someone from this amount of

power takes this risk i think others are going to follow suit. we already saw jack reed, a senator from rhode island say he was in favor of gay marriage. this will go from changing public opinion to changing policy. you have to change public opinion before changing policy and this was a wonderful step toward that direction. >> the president has the largest mega phone in the world. he can not only change our issues of moral policy but civil rights framework. he perhaps alone in the nation can change the way we think about this. i think one of the things that is fascinating about this issue is in a way when you look at the arc of history, how fast this evolution has been, not just for him individually, but within our political context, so richard tell me, does this surprise you in a sense that we are where we are today given where we were 10, 15 years ago? >> when i look back at 2004 when

11 anti-gay marriage bans passed, i never thought we would get here. there is something very important in obama's statement. he said this is a personal position he takes but he's in favor of letting the states sort it out. that is not consistent with fully supporting marriage rights. he left a little wiggle room there, and we got to pressure him more to really put the money and the soldiers where his mouth was today. >> wayne, let me follow up with that. there is a reality. the statement is powerful. it is to be applauded. he deserves, as both of you said, the political reward for the risk he has taken. we'll talk about the magnitude of that risk in a bit, perhaps but what does he have to do to make this tangible? the defensive marriage act is still there, and horrendous and heinous as most of us think it is. should he propose a federal

statute that redefines marriage or is he okay leaving this to states, and does he, for instance, now need to go back and sign the executive order about lbgt rights that trigger this discussion over the last couple of weeks, something that he refused to do a couple of weeks ago. >> this is a terrific start. coming out in favor of marriage equality, it sets the stage for all types of progress to happen. once you've gone to home plate it's not hard to go back to third and second base, for example, for the executive order or for moving forward the employment nondiscrimination act, and passing all other sorts of legislation. i think we're doing fine right now. the most important thing the president can do is get re-elected. i'm looking at the supreme court. this ultimately will not be decided by the states. this is going to the supreme court. when it does are we going to have fair-minded justices or justices like scalia thomas, we need the president to win

re-election to have fair-minded justices to win in the future. >> i'm with you in a matter of principle, as a matter of strategy i'm not sure you want this issue to get to the supreme court too soon. i'm not sure that you have the votes there. based on my experience as attorney general of new york we tried to debate this issue. and we could not persuade the court there to go where we thought it needed to go. >> that's exact italy why we we--that's exactly why we need the president to be re-elected. we need fair-minded justices. it will all go to one vote in the supreme court. but to fair-minded justices it bets the equation. that's why we need to do everything in our power to turn obama's risk to a reward to get out there and vote, and do whatever it takes. i think people are motivated and i think it's going to make a big difference because he promised hope and change in the

last--when he ran for election and now for his re-election this is what hope and change looks like, and people are excited and really motivated to get going towards his re-election. >> wayne, i agree with you about all of that. i would tell you as the practice tall matter of politics getting justices confirmed by the united states senate who will vote that way will be a tall order, even if president obama is re-elected re-elected. and richard jump in on that. >> the challenge to prop 8 brought8.it seems that the litigation that would be narrow will be only about california. but we don't know. that could go before the court very soon, and justice kennedy is a crucial vote there. he has a pretty decent record on gay rights. but it's not clear where he's going to stand on that. >> thewe'll talk about that much more when it gets to court. before we get to the supreme

court litigation, let's talk about something much easier the president could do, and wayne you talked about this, when you get to home plate, going back to third and second plate is easy. what if he doesn't sign the executive order that was on his desk, about lbgt employee rights. will there be upset? will he be forgiven? i don't understand how he can't sign it now. what happens. >> don't ask, don't tell misstatementhisstatement today on marriage equality, i think he has clenched the lbgt vote. romney is an etch-a-sketch by pulling a page from george w. bush saying i'm a decider. and he puts his finger in the wind to see which way the

political winds are going. i don't see why he won't sign the executive order. everybody who is going to attack him on his statement will go after him any way. he might well do what is right moral and just and sign the executive order. >> the lesser included issue. he has gone so much beyond that as a statement of core principles and values, why not embrace the issue and say, you know, almost as a matter of logic, therefore i must sign this and be consistent in what he said. richard, let me ask you this. there is something here, in '96, before he was a national political figure he was four square in favor of same-sex marriage and a more expansive view of civil liberties. then he got a more constrained view while he played in the national political arena. is there a piece in you that he has always had this view. he just couldn't quite say it. >> i don't know what goes on in the president's head but he said in a survey that he is for

marriage, and he would fight to block it. something changed, maybe because he was running for president. there is no way that you look at this president and what he believes in civil rights broadly, citizenship that he does not support in same-sex marriage. it's great that he's on the record now having done that. >> i'm not sure that this is the last time we'll have this conversation. if you look next who would run for president. you have got former president jimmy carter who is in favor of this. i think it's impossible for any collectible democrat to ever run again and have a chance in the primaries. >> this goes back if to the first point you made. when the president speaks on an issue like this, it resets the table and redefines the playing field, and that's what has happened today. whatever the legal consequences we're now living in a new moral framework when the one voice

that speaks for the nation has said this is something that should be part of our sense of citizenship. richard kim, executive editor of the nation, and wayne many thanks for your time. republicans pull even to the right, hard to think it's even possible. maybe that's why mitt romney longs for the great g.o.p. icon, bill clinton. more viewpoint coming up next. better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer.

>> one of the last moderate senators was defeated last night when dick lugar was taken down by an indiana tea party candidate. many took this as a sign that bipartisan in washington is a

dying concept. >> bipartisanship means they have to come our way. to me the highlight of politics, frankly, is to inflict my opinion on someone else with a microphone or in front of a% camera. >> that's richard murdoch's view of compromise. richard lugar shared some of his thoughts last night. i quote, his embrace of an un unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and what brings results for hushes. in affect what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes. meanwhile, mitt romney longs for the good old days of president clinton. >> president clinton made he was to reform welfare as we know.

but president obama is trying to tirelessly expand the welfare state. >> mitt romney claimed credit for the auto bailouted and now he's raising bill clinton. as we have been discussing the headline of the day continues to be president obama's statement on same-sex marriage. here to discuss this republican strategist former mccain campaign adviser ford o'connell. and democrat strategist and syndicated come him nice karl frisch. >> you're holding a losing hand. when is the republican patriot going to wise up and say civil rights applies to everybody. >> i don't think we're going to actually. while president obama made a political move designed to fire up his base and secure more money given that one in six supporters for president obama

is gay. he was doing a calculated political move. he could close this because essentially this is going to hurt him in states like north carolina, an possibly florida. he's saying this is a base election and i'm willing to make my stand in ohio. >> i look at the electoral map and the demographics, i was involve as tournament attorney general govern, and my views are clear i looked at this as simply time. when you look at the breakout above the generations. anyone above an age of 60 was against it, and those below the age of 40 were for it. is the republican party losing the battle of time here because every year the voters who are supportive of this get more numerous, and those aren't are fewer and fewer in number. what happens to a republican party that is digging itself putting it's feet in concrete and unable to say yes, we understand same-sex marriage is something that folks support? >> i don't think the republican

party is digging itself a grave. particularly in the battleground states when plane have a ban against same-sex marriage. for many republicans and even hispanic, they see marriage as as as a sacrament between a man and a woman. it's about the word marriage and how people view that. >> if you saw mitt romney he's trying to thread the needle, and when you begin to parse this swing state by swing state two of them had this on the ballot. north carolina affirming prop 1 to exclude same-sex marriage and then colorado not enough votes to bring the issue to the floor to get civil union. mitt romney is doing okay in those swing states defending what he views as marriage.

is a that how he's looking at it tonight? >> i do think that's how he's looking at it. by using this to fire up the base on the left, president obama is saying i'm going to seal off the midwest and lock mitt romney out of the southwest. maybe i'll be giving mitt romney the southeast but again we'll find out. in some of these battleground states, president has a 1 million voter registration advantage. he'll use that because of moderates because of the lose to the blue dogs, hey, this is a base election so i'll have my base against your base, roll the dice, mitt romney. >> it seems to me that this was a brilliant strategy to motivate a base that was uncertain where it wanted to go. was is that what it was about and was his hand forced a little bit by joe biden over the weekend. >> i think it's a combination of all that. at its core it shows the president standing up for what he believes in.

i don't think anybody who in this country who pays attention to politics knew where he stood. this helps the president with very important demographics, young people who are not going to be swayed to support mitt romney, ford needs to check the motor, he's running on empty and the idea this would sway african-americans or hispanic voters is ludicrous. hispanic voters favor-- >> that is not true. >> and it's certainly. >> karl, that's not true. if the president was so much for same-sex marriage, why didn't he have this position on day one? why didn't he sign the executive order? he needs to fire up his base and this is the tool to do it. [chuckling] >> meanwhile-- >> let me hop in there for a second. there is a strand between the latino-hispanic community of the more evangelicalcal universe where there is strong opposition

to same-sex marriage. on the other hand, i think what karl is saying within the broader latino community there is a progressive view of civil rights. we'll put that issue off for the moment. karl, i want to come back to you again to the tactics of this. this does jeopardize i would imagine the president's capacity to win in north carolina. where just yesterday by 69-31 there was a very strong vote against same-sex marriage. so how does the white house calculate that in its electorate electoratecalelectoratecalculous. >> they are going to be much more conservative than the general electorate. and, two, in a fall election the most important thing this president could do to win in north carolina is what he did in 2008, and that is turn out young people, and this is going to energize them. two, turn out the african-american base. they're going to be there strong for him.

>> i actually agree with that. >> can i hop in on that one. >> of course you can. >> basically president obama's electorate ceiling was 310 electoral votes. as of today it's 295. mitt romney's ceiling 290 electoral votes. this is becoming a much closer election because of this issue. i don't think it will be the dominant issue but it will play a significant role in the battleground states. >> you want to talk about effecting who women vote for? you've got one president and his predecessors, george w. bush supported civil unions in 2004. and mitt romney not surprisingly is against evolution. he does not support marriage. he doesn't support civil unions. the best you can get out of mitt romney when it comes to lbgt equality is to say they should not be discriminated against. but the only thing he can bring himself to say is maybe they should be able to visit each other in the hospital. >> mitt romney spoke up for civil union benefits. >> let me switch gears.

our positions on this are clear. we'll have to wait to see how the votes are cast in november. we'll have to wait on this issue. i want to switch to indiana where dick lugar went down in flames. huge loss. the tea party with enormous power. if they take control of the senate, then this will look like the house where republican tea party senators will hold the senate hostage and pull it way to the right. >> republicans want fiscal conservatives in there. they're happy with what the house is doing. they do not want to see our debt continue to pile up. >> yes. >> going into debt without paying it down. >> karl, you get the last word. >> the final word, if you like what george w. bush did for the economy, and you think you need more of it, and you like the tea party conservatives who want to end medicare and give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaire

who is have done well no matter what the economy is doing support the republicans in the senate. >> because president obama is doing a great job in the economy. >> we'll hold it right there. i can say one thing, i think you're exactly right but there are ten people in the country who want do that. >> there are 3.2 million who wants to see more jobs created. >> that is bigger than ten. that's why i would be voting for president obama's strategy. >> ford o'connell, and democrat strategist karl fricsh, thank you for your time tonight. >> thank you, eliot. >> michelle bachmann has become swift. does that mean she's finally neutral? the viewfinder next. current tv. >>every night on cable news networks everyone's focusing on what's wrong. i want this show to move past that. i love creative people, and with all the vexing problems we have we need creative thinking. >>(narrator) with interviews

with notables from silicon valley, hollywood, and beyond. >>at the end of the day this show's simple. it's about ideas. ideas are the best politics. ideas can bring us together. >>(narrator) the gavin newsom show. coming to current tv.

y politics from inside the loop. >>we tackle the big issues here in our nation's capital, around the country and around the globe. >>dc columnist and four time emmy winner bill press opens current's morning news block. >>we'll do our best to carry the flag from 6 to 9 every morning. >>liberal and proud of it.

♪ >> eliot: tell me this isn't orwellian. monday on this program three former scene officials from the national security agency said that nsa had conducted surveillance on billions of domestic phone calls in violation of federal law and the constitution. these whistle blowers were not radical or hotheaded. they had over half a century of combined government service among them and possessed the bearing of 19 50's fbi agents. when they spoke i believed them. also on that program congressman congressman ed markie talked about phone companies giving private customer information to law enforcement without any warrant, subpoena, or evident

evidentiary hearing. now twitter is being ordered to produce all its mentions from an occupy wall street protester the activist him himselfic was told he could not object to his own tweets being turned over. privacy can disappear. every key stroke, phone call and movement leaves electronic fingerprints that can be traced. every cell phone is gps device, and every google can be stored for posterity. should government track our movements? should private parties be able to sell our data searches? are federal data agencies willfully ignoring privacy standards that once formed the basis of our society. none of these issues are easy, and the balances to be struck may be nuanced at the end of the

day, but right now we're mashing towards a world where george or weorwell's 1984 might seem benign. if we value privacy as a guiding principle it's time to stand up and protect it. that's my view. and what it's doing live. our e-trade pro platform offers powerful functionality that's still so usable you'll actually use it. and our mobile apps are the ultimate in wherever whenever investing. no matter what kind of investor you are, you'll find the technology to help you become a better one at e-trade.

>> eliot: visitors are putting more pressure on bank of america to be a responsible citizen. they came out in droves for the bank shareholders meeting in charlotte, north carolina. at least four were arrested. inside brian moynahan was forced to live to lashing from shareholders angry over the handling of foreclosures and a

range of other issues. shareholders using corporate america as a way to influence corporate practice we're joining by the rain forest action network, one of the shareholders inside the bank of america meeting protesting the bank's underwriting of the coal industry. amanda, thank you for joining us tonight. >> good evening, eliot, thank you very much for having me on the show. >> eliot: first describe what it was like. how many shareholders were there to protest. what was the structure, how do you do it, what ises sense of what it's like when you're a dissident voice in a shareholder bank like bank of america. >> more than 1,000 people were out on the streets outside of the shareholder meeting raising issues from everything from talking about foreclosures to the environmental impacts of bank of america's investments calling them bank of america to pay taxes. they've avoided federal taxes this year. and protesting the fact that while 30,000 employees are getting laid off executives

like brian moynahan are continue to go get incredibly hyponewses in the millions. now inside the meeting one more than 100 people, 100 shareholders and proxy shareholders who were there to speak up about bank of america continually putting the pursuit of profits ahead of looking out for people, looking out for communities. it was really, really interesting shareholder meeting. i've been to many before, and this was the first one where i felt the people and their issues held the floor and dominated the meeting. >> did you get a sense of support from the shareholders who were there and did you get a sense of support from the corporate shareholders. the large blocks of equity, the ownership that resides in mutual funds, pension funded, endowment endowments those votes have to come to our sides. do you believe you could persuade those big blocks of

capital to come over and be supportive on your issues of environmental issues that are your passion. >> that's a great question. certainly today there were constitutional shareholders and their representatives who were speaking in support of these issues. in fact, some of the constitutionalinstitutional shareholders asking bank of america to take it's money out of lobbying and increased transparency in the kind of laws and measures they're seek to go influence. in terms of the support that i felt really, after every single person who spoke, whether they were talking about homes being foreclosed on or tax or predatory lending or coal mining, there was a round of applause, and it was not just coming from the people affected by that issue. if we just look at the trends here, we've seen increasingly larger and larger percentages of institutional shareholder

support behind resolutions like these. just a couple of weeks ago the citibank shareholder meeting the shareholders passed a resolution opposing the pay package of their ceo, and that really shows you that shareholder power can yield some unexpected result. >> eliot: it seems as though the first issue that has ignited shareholder passion is ceo pay. it seems that the next issue is the one you just mentioned can shareholders get together and say to the banks and other financial institutions and companies major corporations stop spending company money on lobbying and trying to insurance the political process. just do your job better. do the job. leave the politics aside, and would this in a way be answer to citizens united. get corporate money out of the political process because shareholders them demand it. do you think we can organize an effort around that principle? >> i think it's a real interesting strategy to pursue and certainly separating corporate money from politics would go an along way and

reasons why a lot of people are angry at cornerses like bank of bank of america. there is another strategy at play here. that is there are very few opportunities for ordinary individual people to get face-to-face time and get the ear of people like ceo brian moynahan and directors and other executives at the bank. any shareholder, whether they have a single share or hundreds of thousands of shares, legally has that opportunity at the shareholder meeting to go and speak out about their company's practices. that exercise of freedom of speech which is so rare to get when we're talking to corporate america was clearly exercised today, and it's an important opportunity. >> eliot: look, amanda, i could not agree with you more. i often said that ownership is the way to change corporations rather than regulation. we can tell them what they can can and cannot do.